- From: L. David Baron via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2019 01:24:58 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
We just discussed this in the meeting (see minutes). When evaluating options here, some cases we considered were: * author modifications to the `list-item` counter (to disable the implicit increment, or other modifications) * author modifications to *other* counters that happen to be on the same element that implicitly modifies the `list-item` counter * what the UA styles for `<li value>` and what (accidentally or intentionally) overrides them * what the behavior for `<ol reversed>` is So we have three alternative proposals that take a different approach, with subtle differences, made in the following order: (A) @fantasai's proposal: if an element has `display: list-item`, then the `list-item` counter is incremented *unless* the `counter-increment` property contains a reference to the `list-item` counter. (Authors can override this effect with `counter-increment: list-item 0`. (B) @dbaron's proposal: if an element has `display: list-item`, then the `list-item` counter is incremented. (Authors can override this effect with `counter-increment: list-item -1`, unless the list is reversed, in which case it would be by `1`.) (C) @FremyCompany's proposal: if an element has `display: list-item`, then the `list-item` counter is incremented *unless* the `counter-reset`, `counter-set`, or `counter-increment` property contains a reference to the `list-item` counter. I think there was probably the most support and the least objection to (A). -- GitHub Notification of comment by dbaron Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3686#issuecomment-468098431 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 28 February 2019 01:24:59 UTC